September 2020

Dear
Editor-in-Chief
International Journal of Medical Education

Thanks for giving us a chance to resubmit our original research article entitled "Factors

influencing healthy role models in medical school to conduct healthy behavior: a qualitative

study" by Michael Andreas Leman, Mora Claramita, and Gandes Retno Rahayu for

consideration for publication in the International Journal of Medical Education. We have

already re-organized our manuscript by considering all recommendations from the editor and

reviewers. Thanks to the complete and detailed recommendation from the editor and

reviewers to help us to improve our manuscript. It helpfully guided us in making this

revision.

In the previously submitted manuscript, we did not explain our previously grounded theory

about the definition and characteristics of a healthy role model in medical school in the

introduction section. We realized that our previous manuscript was unclear, primarily when

there is no publication yet about a healthy role model in medical school. There is no

theoretical framework yet for this topic. Therefore, we conducted a previous grounded theory

to explore the definition and characteristics of a healthy role model in medical school. We

wish by adding the result of our previous grounded theory, it could help international readers

to understand what we were studying.

This manuscript is the result of our study that continued from the previous grounded theory

and survey. These studies were under review in other journals. We wish that this revision has

facilitated all the comments and recommendations from the editor and reviewers. We

attached the detailed description of the manuscript's revision according to each comment and

recommendation from the editor and reviewers with this cover letter.
Each of the authors confirms that this manuscript has not been previously published and is

not currently under consideration by any other journal. Additionally, all of the authors have

approved this paper's contents and have agreed to the International Journal of Medical

Education submission policies. Each named author has substantially contributed to

conducting the underlying research and drafting this manuscript. Additionally, to the best of

our knowledge, the named authors have no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Andreas Leman

School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine
Universitas Sam Ratulangi
micpatlem1982@unsrat.ac.id
Appendix 1. The descriptions of comments and recommendations of the editor and reviewers
and revision in the manuscript
No. Comment of Reviewer and/editor
Title
1 Editor:
The study title should be a maximum
of 120 characters (including spaces).
The study title should be informative
and reflect the study's aim. Please
change "a phenomenology study" to a
"Qualitative study." I totally agree
with the reviewers, and it is not a
phenomenology study
for sure.
Reviewer #1:
It is not clear. I read the manuscript
twice to get some ideas about "a
healthy role model," and I did not
appreciate what is this. Also, I do not
believe that phenomenologists
consider this study as a
phenomenology. This is because I
struggle to find a tiny sign of these
types of studies. Never use it as it is
entirely misleading. You may use a
qualitative study.
Reviewer #2:
Another major problem is that the
author(s) claimed a phenomenology
study, as a phenomenologist, I do not
think this is a phenomenology study.
The ontological, epistemological, and
methodological assumptions
underlying this study does not exist.
Abstract
2 Editor:
Please visit
https://www.ijme.net/authors to
improve the Abstract. The abstract
section is unacceptable. So please
make sure you address the issues
raised by the reviewers across the
manuscript. In the Methods, you need
to explain study design, sample size,
sampling procedure, data collection
methods, the data analysis approach.
In the results, you need to focus on the
Revision made by authors
The previous title of the manuscript has been
changed from "Factors related to being a
healthy role model in medical school: a
phenomenology study" to "Factors
influencing healthy role models in medical
school to conduct healthy behavior: a
qualitative study." We changed our study
design to a qualitative study as editor and
reviewer comments
The study aimed to identify the factors that
support or inhibit medical teachers as healthy
role models in medical school to conduct
healthy behavior. We hope this new title is
clear and has reflected the study's aim.
We also checked the number of characters of
the title of the manuscript that did not exceed
120 characters, including spaces.
We fully revised the abstract by following the
editor and reviewer's comments. In the
methods, we explained the study design,
sample size, sampling procedure, data
collection methods, the data analysis
approach. In the results, we only focused on
two identified themes we found in this study.
In the conclusions, we told the readers about
the implications of our findings in medical
education that what we found could be used
as reference points to design an intervention
to help medical teachers in conducting
 identified themes. More healthy behavior.
fundamentally, Conclusions, you need We also recommended future studies since
to describe the implications of the we realized that there more other factors that
study for medical education and did not explore in our study due to our
recommendations for future research. limitation of the study.
It must be up to 250 words, but less
than 230 words is not acceptable. The abstract contains 237 words as the
guidelines of IJME.
Reviewer #1:
Certainly does not encourage
international readers to read and cite
the manuscript. The main
reason is it was not drafted
academically. No one considers it as
an abstract section. It does not say
anything important to read. It would
help if you told the international
readers about the implications of the
findings in medical education and
future studies. Otherwise, I do not see
any point to read the entire
manuscript.

Reviewer #2:
The Abstract does not accurately
portray the study
Introduction
3 Reviewer #1:
Certainly, it is not acceptable for both
qualitative and quantitative research
studies. This section must be
dramatically improved using a proper
literature review. So please improve
this section using the previous studies
and then clearly state the knowledge
gap followed by the aim and
objectives of the study. Please note
that you MUST clearly state what do
you mean by a healthy role model
(theoretical definition). Otherwise,
your manuscript will never make
sense for the reader as it did not make
send for me.
We realized that there is no publication yet
about a healthy role model in medical school.
Therefore, we tried to explain that we
conducted the grounded theory to explore the
definition and characteristics of a healthy role
model in medical school. This previous study
is under review in the other Journal.
However, we explained what we found in the
previous grounded theory about the definition
and characteristics of a healthy role model in
medical school in the Introduction section of
our revision manuscript. We hope that this
added information could help readers to
understand what we were studying.

Reviewer #2:
 I do know what the healthy role
model is
 I do not know what the reason for
doing the study is- No literature
review
  The purpose of the study is not
clear
Methods
Reviewer #1:
Methods- Very serious concern and
organized like a blog post. Blog posts
and Bulletins are not suitable for
publication as they are not considered
as an academic piece. The
methodology described will never
reflect a qualitative study. Here I
would recommend that you address
the following subheadings:
We re-organized our methods section based
on the reviewer's comments. Thanks for the
detailed recommendation on reviewer #1 and
reviewer #2 to re-organize our methods
section.
We also read some examples of a qualitative
study published in IJME and followed
reviewer #1 to re-organized our methods
section.

Reviewer#2: We decided to write three subsections of

 Research design is unclear
 The study methodology is unclear
 The methods are not appropriately
structured
methods: study design, participants, and
setting, data collection method, and data
analysis. The data collection procedure was
elaborated with a data collection method in
that subsection.

We hope this revision has followed the

recommendation of the two reviewers.
Reviewer #1: We named these subsections as "study
Study design and participants: design, participants, and setting." We added
It is not a phenomenology study due to this setting to inform readers where we
to a complete lack of evidence of this conduct our study to remind readers about the
type studies, possibility of different results of study due to
differences in context.
Adequately describe what the study
design is.Why a qualitative study was We changed our study design to a qualitative
chosen. Adequately describe who are study as a recommendation from the editor
the study participants, in terms of and reviewers.
gender and other demographics.
Adequately describe sample size and In this subsection, we also explained: 1) the
sampling procedure. Here you MUST reason to conduct this qualitative study that
describe the principle of data focuses on the experiences and perceptions of
saturation; otherwise, the study medical teachers on what factors that support
described do not make sense at all. and inhibit them as a healthy role model in
Next, sufficiently explain the ethical medical school to perform healthy behaviors;
issues (considerations) followed 2) the demographics (the background field of
by the ethical approval. medicine of our participants); and, 3) sample
size and sampling procedure we used. The
ethical issues followed by ethical approval
was also addressed in this section.
Reviewer #1: We placed the interview guide in the
Data collection method appendix as a reviewer's recommendation.
Please adequately describe the data We also explained the rationale to develop
collection method. What methods ere the list of our guide questions.
used to obtain data and why? You
 do not need to describe the interview
guide. Please address it as an
appendix. A clear rationale for
selecting the instrument MUST be
provided/. Please describe what
happened for the interview data. Did
you transcribe them.
Reviewer #2:
 The process of collecting data and
methods selected are not explained.
No rationale for selection the
instrument used
 There is no evidence of
dependability or evidence that
dependability was even addressed.
Reviewer #1:
Procedure
How did you collect the data? Who?
When? where? Please adequately
describe.
Reviewer #1:
Data analysis
You need to tell the reader how did
you analyse the interview transcripts,
which is supported BY THE
EVIDENCE.
Reviewer #2:
 Data analysis steps are not clear
 Table – I was unable to find a
connection between Table 1 and
the content.
RESULTS
Reviewer #1:
This is not part of the results: "A total
of 10 participants … Department of
Psychiatry. Please move to the
methods.
These citations are meaningless
(P3RA1). They should be based on the
study participant for example (
No 1, female, ENT Department,…)
Never ever use Category A and B.
First it is meaningless from a
We also explained the data collection
method, the place we conducted data
collection followed by data collection
procedures. We emerged the data collection
method with the procedure since it could be
explained separately.
The characteristic of the interviewer, which
was the first author, has explained in this
section. The role of two other authors in
collecting data as a supervisor has also been
explained in this section.
The process of how the data was transcribed
and by whom it transcribed was explained in
this section.
In the data analysis subsections, we explained
how we analyze the interview transcript by
conducting open coding by two coders. The
consensus of coding data result between two
coders conducts with discussion and debate
in several meetings. Two other authors
helped clarified the result of coding between
two coders. The differences in coding were
finalized by discussion until consensus was
reached. All of this process was explained in
this section.
We change the description of Table 1 to draw
subcategories, categories, and theme that
identified in this data analysis process.
The sentences: "A total of 10 participants..."
has been moved to the methods section, i.e.,
study design, participants, and setting
subsections.
The code of all citations from our
participant's comment in the result section
was changed by following the example
recommended by reviewer #1.
We used “active” and”passive” term to
change the category A and B of healthy role
 qualitative research perspective. Never model in medical school as recomended by
use category 1 and category 2… It is reviewer #1.
very simple to look at JUST a
qualitative aper to get a greater The identified themes changed from the long
understanding as to how to draft a sentences to a short sentence.
research paper. Table 1 is a part of data analysis. We changed
the descriptions of this table that we
It is not acceptable to generate a longe explained previously.
sentence to describe a theme. For
example, Factors that support
medical teachers as a healthy role
model in medical school to conduct
healthy behaviour. A theme must be
very short. These sentences made your
results very dull and it does not
encourage the reader to read your
works.

I am not clear about Table 1. Is it part

of the analysis approach? You must
clarify it otherwise, it is very
confusing.
DISCUSSIONS
Reviewer #1: We tried to re-organized our discussion by
1. It must be based on the study following the result of the study and compare
results and then compare with with the previous studies.
previous studies
2. Limitations of the study must be We wrote the limitations of the study at the
elaborated end of the discussion as we followed some
examples of a qualitative study published in
IJME.

CONCLUSIONS
Reviewer #1:
It does not say anything important. It
should be aligned with the aim and
objectives of the study. Summarise the
results and then describe the
implications of the study for medical
education. All implications and
recommendations need to be justified
by the findings and include
applications for practice, policy and
further research.
REFERENCES
Editor:
The reference number should be
We changed our conclusions by following the
recommendation on what must be explained
in the conclusions section. We wrote the
implication and application of our study for
medical school, primarily to focus on
removing barriers and strengthening
facilitators to increase the effectiveness of the
characteristics of medical teachers as healthy
role models in conducting healthy behavior.
We also described that the presence of a
healthy role model in the community could
help increase the health nation.
All references are placed a superscript. We
also used EndNote to manage our reference,
 placed as a superscript at the end of as suggested by the IJME editor. We
the sentence to which it downloaded the IJME style and used it in
refers, AFTER THE FULL STOP. If EndNote.
the reference number is within the
sentence, make sure that they are
also superscript.

Reference must be formatted

according to the Journal. Please read
through the following
link: http://www.ijme.net/authors/,
section 7.8. Alternatively, please look
to the research articles of
the Journal to organise the reference
list according to the Journal.
http://www.ijme.net/archive/.

References may be managed using

EndNote (style: Intl J Medical
Education) or other reference
managers. Please visit
http://www.ijme.net/authors/. Please
make sure the references provided are
correct and adequately addressed.
NOTE: the reference list should be
formatted according to the IJME.
Please read through FAQ
http://www.ijme.net/faq/ to fix the
references. The name of the journals
should be based on PubMed. Do not
create abbreviations if journals are not
available in PubMed. For
instance, International Journal of
Medical Education should read Int J
Med Educ.
ENGLISH STYLE
Editor: This manuscript has proofread by a native
Please make sure the manuscript has speaker that has an education field
no English errors before submitting. background. He works as a native speaker in
This will significantly reduce the the Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and
review process. See the reviewers' Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, and help
comments. Quality of English is not to edit and proofread the manuscript of staff.
acceptable. Please ask a NATIVE Before this manuscript was proofread, we
ENGLISH of SPEAKER to EDIT and consulted it to our staff with experience in a
Proofread the manuscript. IT IS qualitative study.
IMPOSSIBLE TO PUBLISH
PAPERS WITH POOR ENGLISH
QUALITY.

Before you want to resubmit the

revised make sure, PLEASE MAKE
SURE THE REVISED
MANUSCRIPT HAS BEEN
DRAFTED ACADEMICALLY. An
English editor, who is expert in
qualitative studies, MUST APPROVE
THE ENGLISH. IJME policy does not
allow us to publish papers with poor
quality in English. If you do not
follow this comment, it is very likely
to the review process take VERY
LONG ( SOMETIMES 1 year based
on our experiences).

Reviewer #1:
The quality of English is not
encouraging, especially for qualitative
studies

Reviewer #2:
The English is a major concern. Don't
forget to improve the quality
of English.
Editor: There is no trade sign in this manuscript.
Please remove all trade signs from the
manuscript (If available). Please make The URL is only allocated in the references.
sure you remove all adverts from your
manuscript, and there are no URLs in
the manuscript (if available).
Editor: All abbreviations were addressed in the main
Please remove list abbreviations (if text. No list abbreviations is written in the
available). Make sure you address manuscript.
them in the main text. It does not
follow the IJME house style.
Editor: The table in this manuscript is editable.
Graphs and tables MUST be editable.
So please do not use snapshots, if
exist.
Editor: -
There is no limit to the length of the
manuscript.
Editor: We organized this manuscript only in a single
Please visit the journal website at manuscript, which included an appendix and
http://www.ijme.net/authors/ and table. This appendix and table are editable
follow the points. Please ensure that and presented in the Microsoft Word
you address these points, especially in program.
the title and Abstract (point by point)
before submitting your manuscript. The single manuscript file and cover letter
Please follow the structure of IJME, that is attached to our revision descriptions of
see the last IJME papers to get a this manuscript were resubmitted.
greater understanding of the structure.
Please organise your paper according
to IJME by looking at some recent
IJME papers. You must submit a
single revised manuscript plus a
cover letter, a total of 2 documents.
So please do NOT submit figures or
tables separately (if available).